Is evolution correct?

I've read this twice and cannot see how this collection of factoids leads to any cogent thought.

You have not made any point, let alone a point on the scientific theory of evolution. You seem to not even understand what is a scientific theory.

Our brains are shrinking.Is that an evolutionary advantage?

https://www.psypost.org/2021/11/brains-are-getting-smaller-in-modern-humans-62124

Cro-Magnon man had a larger brain than us.

Has anyone tested the long term effects of lead on the brain?

The air was once permeated with lead from exhaust of fossil fuel vehicles,and was for generations.Could this be causing our brains to shrink?The shrinkage is greater in heavy industrialized countries.

I’m looking at your link now, the question that needs to be asked is which part of the brain is shrinking, and which part may be increasing.

'Although our brains were getting bigger progressively, around 70,000 years ago they plateaued, and have been shrinking ever since. John Hawks, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin, explains how, over the last 20,000 years alone, human brains have shrunk from 1,500 cubic centimeters (cc) to 1,350 cc, roughly the size of a tennis ball.There are many possible explanations for this, but no one can pinpoint exactly why and how this is happening. The type of matter within the brain that we are losing paints an even more perplexing picture. We see an erosion of grey matter, not white matter.'

https://usfblogs.usfca.edu/biol100/2018/03/20/why-are-our-brains-shrinking/comment-page-1/

That is interesting, now I wonder if that some type of defense mechanism do to grey matter is the part that Alzheimers affects. In other words, evolves.

the other items, is the usages of the portion of the brain having anything to do that contributes to the shrinkage, such as the usage. I don’t have the data, but at one point we as humans only usage a small percentage of the brain if that’s has anything to do with it.

I added a link for the usage between white and grey matter.

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_0a004166-66c5-56b1-82d7-84abc90f414d.html

Size isn't everything. Elephants and cattle (eg) have bigger brains than humans, but it doesn't mean they're more intelligent.

Maybe humans are evolving to make better use per kg of our brains.

possible, considering for the most part, a lot of humans don’t use even a fraction…

I agree with the point you are making. One correction is needed though: bovine brains are not larger than human brains. Bovine brains are typically a little under 1/2 kg, whereas human brains are around 1.3 kg.

There are several species that have larger brains than humans though. Sperm whales have the largest brains on the planet.

It has been shown that some of these ancient civilisations met their demise through changing weather conditions.

In South America, the irrigation systems were rebuilt smaller and smaller as the amount of available water in their location reduced.

No doubt some left for different areas before they died of malnutrition, but others - like those who stay in aid camps today - would have been led to believe that their fortunes would change by those who saw power in numbers.

Nomads survive, but do not leave vast buildings behind or have burgeoning cities.

We can see the rise of the couch potato in some cultures, although it is unlikely that they will last the several generations required to become a separate subspecies without some interbreeding with those who stay fitter.

Humans have a bigger tendency to become average than any other animal due to our ability to see all around the planet.

Bats, in the other hand, have been shown to have sub species living on opposite sides of hill ranges as food and weather conditions are different and the hills are higher than the bats fly.

Sorry IQ, but you are completely mixing up concepts of Darwinian evolution, and, cultural evolution. The time scales are completely different.

The recent history you are talking about is a blink of an eye compared to the timescales of Darwinian evolution.

Yes in very recent history there have been many civilisations which have risen and fallen, but, if you were to take a human baby (*) from a prehistoric family and transport him through time to be brought up by a modern family, then, he/she would be indistinguishable (**) from any other person.

(*) You have to avoid species like Neanderthals which have died out.

(**) Of course he would have his own identity and be recognisable: I mean that no one would be able to tell that he had been transported through time.

I have no issue that humans evolved to a recent time. However, the hypothesis is that humans have now stopped evolving, to evolve artificial intellegence to replace most tasks that humans would have done. In order to evolve, an obstacle needs to be overcome for a human to evolve and develop, to overcome a certain issue.

By developing artificial intellegence, this robs most humans of the skill or the required changes to evolve. I agree, some humans may evolve to a certain degree, but the majority will not. With artificial intelligence being used more, the evolution of humans will slow to a point that it will not exist. So in looking ahead, humans will not evolve further but stagnate.

The reason humans evolved better than animals is simply humans evolved a better thinking out of neccessity. However, humans still do not conclusively know what animals think or actually know.

I agree evolution has taken place. As of now, it is no longer correct, we are entering a reverse and the chances of passing on better genes, is now becoming less. Perhaps this is why so many civilisations have become extinct.

You are not putting forward a coherent argument. In particular you have not addressed my point that you are muddling up Darwinian evolution and cultural evolution.

"passing on better genes"

You need to start trying to define the term "better genes": is that, genes which are better for the individuals that carry them, OR, genes which result in greater numbers of those genes? The latter is the way that Dawkins realised that evolution works.

As a simple example ants are descended from wasps, and the total number of ants on the planet outstrips the number of wasps by several hundred times.

What many people confuse about evolution is the iteration period or cycle interval is critical. We often default to a unit cycle being so much time but for both Darwinian and cultural evolution that cycle is the imprecise unit of a generation. Thus many pathogens with their shorter generation cycle time evolve faster than their hosts. Similarly, many cultural cycles happen today within one person's lifetime.

{On another note, I doubt you will ever get an acknowledgment of your accurate point about differentiating the Darwinian evolution of species and cultural evolution from anyone but me. That's just how things at CR4 goes.}

I have to make your last statement false! Anyone who can't distinguish between Darwinian and cultural evolution clearly does not understand the causes of one or both.

Yes, my writing was imprecise but it was not false. I didn't think Randall would ever get acknowledged by IQ. Your conclusion is precisely my reason for my comment.

If you want to go back to the source of all life,the source of the universe itself,according to current level of scientific knowledge,then go back to the big bang.

IMHO:

Before the BB,there was nothing.

Absolutely nothing.No energy or matter,or spacetime.

A single event started the dominoes tumbling up to the current state.

I say dominoes,because every action is accompanied by an equal and opposite reaction.

After an unknown and unknowable series of events,we are at the present level.

I say series of events because all actions are preceded by a previous action.

Even the BB was preceded by some prior action,ad infinitum.

Even supposedly random events are accompanied by prior events,even though we cannot currently detect or conceive of them, even in our wildest speculations.

Space time expanded in all directions in space and time,even in reverse time from the way we perceive it now.

Even radioactive decay is not really truly random,it has been shown to be affected by solar activity,and of course the solar activity is caused by prior actions.

Random is simply a term,like infinity to assign to things we cannot compute or understand.

Our entire observable universe may be the result of "spooky action at a distance." which we could never prove,one way or the other,because we are locked into our current system of time measurement,relying on comparative motion to measure time.There is presently no way to escape it.

A very nice synopsis but I believe you've included a very common misconception. The BB does not stipulate the prior existence of anything, including nothing that preceded it. It does stipulate that nothing from prior conditions is carried into this universe.

IMHO:

We do not know,nor can we ever know, what preceded the BB.

For our universe, as we can know it,everything begins with that single event.

Physics as we know it,breaks down before that point.

We get close,but not close enough to get answers.

The acknowledgement of our ignorance,and the limits of our knowledge is the beginning of wisdom.

Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.

GA

But

"We do not know, nor can we ever know, what preceded the BB."

Unfortunately "preceded" is not a word which has any meaning in that context.

It is important to remember that there can be no real argument about taste or opinion.

Everyone has one,and there are are approximately 8 billion of them on this planet at the present time.

An opinion has no need for defense.

Someone may disagree with an opinion,but that is natural and necessary.

Different opinions drive the economies of this world..it takes at least two horses and two different opinions to make a horse race.

If everyone had the exact portfolio of stocks that they wanted,and did not buy or sell anything in their perfect portfolio, the stock market would collapse.

The optimists are always buying,and the pessimists are always selling.

Money is like electrons:It has no value unless it is circulating,and there are similar influences on the movement.

I tolerate differing opinions without getting upset,or trying to sway them to my side.

I consider other opinions, and that may influence me to take a different view on my own,and so other opinions are valuable in providing a different perspective and as a learning experience.

Tolerance is the key to survival.

A Good New Year to All.

Regardless of how we define intelligence,the ultimate test is survival.

The "smartest" species will survive the longest,in the absence of natural disasters(or in our case,man-made disasters).

In that case,the viruses,bacteria and insects and crocodile species has us beat.

Bacteria can re-assemble antibiotics for their own defense after they have been chemically broken down in a waste treatment plant.

Viruses and bacteria can adapt to resist anything we throw at them.

We are reactive,they are proactive because they can reproduce very quickly..evolution in high gear.

Adapt and overcome is the motto of evolution,the ultimate goal of which is survival.

The size of the brain is irrelevant.There are plenty of people with hydrocephalus that lead normal lives,some even excelling in certain areas,and the cat scans show noting but a small amount of brain tissue present,the rest is fluid.

Consider a gnat's brain for instance.Try to swat one.It has a collision avoidance system that would be the envy of any fighter pilot or engineer. It can fly under it's own power, can take off and land,even upside down,refuel itself,eliminate body waste and reproduce.Our most powerful computers cannot do that,not to mention the size constraints.

The viruses,bacteria,and insects will be around long after the human species is merely a layer of sediment.

So who is really smarter?

Adaptations are resulted due to the demands of the environment while evolution is resulted due to the adaptations and speciation processes.

Adaptation is a step in the whole process of evolution.

Adaptation is the first step, and evolution is the end result.

So it is quite plausible that we have not fully evolved as we like to believe, as we are not adapting to our environment, not adapting to virus's, but more so trying to control our environment to adapt to our existence. We are reverse engineering the evolutionary process to survive, where all else is evolving and leaving humans behind.

Evolution can happen rapidly.Here is an example:

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2020/01/paper-wasps-rapidly-evolved-ability-identify-faces

Here are some close ups of wasp/hornet faces:

https://www.google.com/search?q=hornets+can+recognise+other+hornets+faces&client=firefox-b-1-d&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=q_u-dBrqCcgHrM%252Chve9RJrdPhqedM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSpjWqz4pX3N89RUAeRyZ2Q5xtzog&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMqqamgpb1AhXQmHIEHdEACzMQ9QF6BAgEEAE&biw=1184&bih=549&dpr=1.62#imgrc=q_u-dBrqCcgHrM

In my own personal experience,they can also recognize a person's face.I flipped a wasp into a spider web one day,and he escaped quickly before the spider had a chance to kill him.

I flipped him with the tip of a broom,from at least 6 feet away,but he immediately came after me and got me right beside my left eye.Fortunately, I had safety glasses with side shields or he would have gotten me in the eyeball.

I seldom get stung by bees or wasps,but a few days later,another wasp got me,and then a bumble bee the next day.The must have a communication system identifying enemies of the species,and I was on it.

Prior to this,it had been years since I had been stung by an insect.

Coincidence? Probably,but after reading these article,I am beginning to wonder.....

Crows can recognize human faces:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/crows-share-intelligence-about-enemies-1.1014915

I remember that the venom of wasps, hornets and other stinging insects often cause flesh to produce a marker chemical that tells others to sting too.

This discussion has turned into a quote that mistakenly attributed to Albert Einstein, but it applies here.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

the results remain the same, for both sides of this discussion (argument) currently going on.

The saga continues unabated…

350 posts and counting, must be important. Latest posts drifted away from original question on correctness of evolution, maybe unconsciously avoiding dealing with the need for certainty to justify belief. We get our educations without answering all questions perfectly. I changed my study from chemistry to chem engineering because I was willing to give up certainty to get visible results, although I didn't see it that way at the time. I have no trouble accepting evolution as explanation of not everything, but enough.

Certainty is comforting, as is acceptance by others we consider peers. Social acceptance is a form of evolution as it supports the cooperation and protection that help us survive. Morality evolved for similar reasons. We are literally fed by the unexplainable in childhood and we use beliefs IN impossibles in our lives for comfort and organization. But as they keep us sane and organized, they usually work. .

Polarization of opinion works that way, too. It is comforting to know that 30% of a group won't get vaccinated if you don't want it either, but it isn't rational. Polarization avoids judgment, and resents those who try to understand what others see and imagine is real to them. Evolution might say that understanding the dangers helps resist them.

My image of the earth may be useful. There are the poles, useful to understand how the earth works, day & night, the seasons, but nobody lives there. We concentrate in the temperate and tropical zones for survival and we'd be even more tropical if we hadn't gotten up on two feet and figured out fire and a few other things. What drives the rate of evolution is critical, but too much for here.

The essences of your post may be good topic for a thread in itself.

because this thread appears to be unsalvagable

I'm beginning to agree. But before this thread gets euthanized, one item deserves mention.

Canadian Slidewinder seems to be hell-bent in insisting on a large gulf between humans and other animals as to self-awareness, self-reflection, consciousness, etc. This obsession harks back to 1600s religious conceits about animals having no souls, no sensations, etc.--just autonomic reflexes.

Such "reasoning" was used to justify unanesthetized vivisection and other cruelties. Today, it raises big red flags of sociopathology.

I appreciate you and SE trying to bring the thread back on track.

as far as the direction I’ve found that.

Sometimes the best way to solve a problem, is to stop participating in the problem.

I believe we have a clear demonstration that culturally not every one of our species has evolved past the 1600s. This demonstration also makes me worry about the ethical treatment of Canadian animals.

Good Advice

If you start with the premise that evolution is the physical change to become more in tune with the environment in which you exist, then humans have evolved very little over time....strip a man of his coverings and drop him in the arctic, is he more evolved than the Polar Bear that eats him finally....? No, man has not evolved faster than other animals...man requires his big brain to survive, other animals are good to go as they are, man must adapt and use other materials to insure survival, he is dependent on his ability and imagination to craft everything he requires to survive...

So man is the least evolved of the other animals...Man needs a big brain to survive, that's why he has a big brain, he could not survive without it, he's weak and not physically able to survive without tools, like a hermit crab he must fashion a shell to live in....he's not fast enough to catch prey, so he must fashion a trap to catch food....he's not strong enough to overcome other predators, so he must fashion weapons to defeat them....

no, man is the least evolved creature, a shark or alligator, is the most evolved creature, they have existed for 10's of millions of years with nothing but physical prowess....

By definition, evolution equals change. If the environment permits, the least changed/evolved beings may be very successful and enduring, but they are not the most evolved.

I'm not sure that humans are the most evolved, but there has been extensive and relatively rapid change, which makes them rather highly evolved. That does not guarantee their perpetual success, though. As a species, cockroaches are likely to outlast humans.

There are many species that have existed for 60 or 70 million years, man has only existed perhaps a million years, we are a young species, we haven't had time to evolve much, as in physical change, but we have changed some and are still changing....Now if we are talking about formidable and domineering, there are species of micro-organisms that can match man's abilities and then some....If we are talking about clever, there are many examples to match man....Man I think can be said to be the most knowledgeable of all species, that's due to the fact that they can record their history and pass it on...so man's knowledge is due to language and recording skills...

Okay, let's see this guy stop the cart, tee up a ball, and give us a 300-yard drive!

I see the video is no longer available... Fortunately, I did view it while it was viewable. I don't have enough knowledge of orangutans to know whether the driver of that cart was an orangutan or a man in an orangutan costume. I strongly suspect the latter.

On the topic of free will, here are two differing perspectives:

1) Martin Gardner, in The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener (1983)

2) Robert M. Sapolsky, in Behave (2017)

Both of these are worth reading.

Here is an out-of the -box idea:

Maybe we have evolution all wrong.

The most successful species is the one that can adapt and survive the longest.

In that case,insects,reptiles,bacteria and viruses are way ahead of us.

Most will still be here long after our species is merely a sediment layer.

Some will be here until the sun turns into a Red Giant.

I expect a lot of push back from this statement,but it may be merely human ego that prevents us from seeing the truth of the matter.

Of course,as always is true of opinions,I could be wrong,as could be the opposing opinions.

Thought is a chemical process in the literal sense.

There can be no thoughts without chemical changes,so this goes back to a cascade of processes that go back to the big bang theory.

Everything is linked to every preceding and following action.

There are no totally independent actions,but there are illusions of it.

Many chemicals can change our perception of reality,psychotic drugs for instance.

You cannot convince anyone under the influence that their reality is not genuine.

It is a futile argument to try to dispute the illusion,because we are trapped within it.

Anyway,I hope my illusion continues for a long time.

That is Causal Determinism. It has its source in our observations of the physical world, of cause and effect. We know empirically that when a cue ball strikes an object ball, one and only one movement of the object ball is possible. Causal determinism asserts that, with humans too, there is one and only one action possible at any given moment due to causal factors. However, with respect to the action of a billiard ball, we can thoroughly know all of the causal factors. This is not possible with respect to human action. Determinists always present as indisputable fact that all of the influences of genetics, environment, and the state of the universe, when combined, result in one and only one possible action. I agree that it sounds good, but that is irrelevant. However good it sounds, it is not an indisputable fact. It is an untestable hypothesis.

Even your reply was predetermined,and as I said,I expected some push back. Your synapses fired in a certain sequence to create your reply,which is an electro-chemical reaction,predicated by previous action.Hence I said it was futile to argue the point,all arguments being predetermined.

I know what you are going to say,no need to say it.

What deterministic combination of genetics, environment, life experience, and state of the universe caused such a particular firing of your synapses that you had no choice but to appropriate the pseudonym of another CR4 member and add a 2 on the end of it?

Ok,let's reduce the billiard ball and object ball down to their constituents:

On a basic level,there is not contact between the two.There are only electrical fields repelling other electrical fields.There is nothing really solid,it is merely an illusion.

We can predict with a certain degree the path that a cloud may follow,but we cannot predict all of the internal molecular motion of all molecules within the cloud.It is presently beyond our technology to compute,so we use the escape hatch:"Random" to describe this.

Going back to the basics,it still started with the BB,and all explosions begin with a single photon.

Certainly this is not provable,but is also not totally unproveable.

So choose your pill,but be careful which one you choose.

WARNING! You are only allowed to edit your posts for a limited period after the original posting. That means you must submit your edit by 02/08/2022 9:31:47 AM, which gives you only 9.6 minutes!
I got this message and could not post this reply even though there was plenty of time left.Seems to be a continuing problem. ______________________________________________________________

Comment Preview:

Once a king silverback gorilla

Happened on itself in a mirror

To everyone's surprise

He did just surmise

It's just a gorilla in a mirror